Humans are not evolved.

1. 0

   jomineposted 11 years ago

   There is a thread stating evolution as false, I agree. Humans were here always. Well, why not?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Because even the planet was not always here, so clearly we have to emerge somehow from somewhere.

      replyreport
   2. 47

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If someone fails to see our progression, and evolution over the past milinium, pray them their cognititive skills.

      replyreport
2. 0

   Emile Rposted 11 years ago

   Human's are not evolved? I know at least one or two people that could be said about.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      lone77starposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Outrageously funny!

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Damsoniaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         It's funny because it's true

         replyreport
3. 73

   thisisoliposted 11 years ago

   Because of the evidence that says otherwise.
   
   What if I started saying all humans were green, after all, all humans are green (even if evidence says otherwise), so why not?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      psycheskinner, thisisoli
      I'll rephrase the question. For those people who deny evolution happened, what is the reason to NOT suppose humans(for that matter, earth) were always here?

      replyreport
      1. 80

         psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Because we know how old the material making up the planet is through the predictable decay of various molecules and the presence of layers of material left and exposed by natural events, and we know what was living on it during various historical eras.  And if you go back far enough there are not people, no animals and no dirt or rocks--in that order.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hey, you are telling me the evidences for evolution. You know that the evolution deniers are denying all these. My question is addressed to them.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I answered the question as you stated it. If you are after something else, it could be made clearer.
               
               Evolution is false/people have always been here=basically the same thing.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  "is a thread stating evolution as false"
                  
                  "I'll rephrase the question. For those people who deny evolution happened"
                  
                  When I rephrased I was more clear, for those who deny evolution....
                  
                  
                  I know, but those who deny evolution states that man is created by someone(god), not they were here always. If an intelligent being needs to be created, then by the same logic, either god is created or god is not intelligent. I was asking the believers which is which, and so far nobody(believer) tried to answer.

                  replyreport
                  1. 47

                     Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Wait a minute. We have great records over the past 400 years. In that time man has evolved. Just look at the speed records for runners. But more importantly look at our increased knowledge base and access thereto. To deny that we are currently evolving is just unacceptable. You can still be a creationist in faith and admit that our fantastic race is becoming more advanced(evolved) nearly everyday.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Tell that to the creationists.

                        replyreport
                     2. 59

                        Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Just look at the speed records for runners.   
                        ==
                        Can the average person today run any faster than the average runner could 4000 years ago.  If a person 4000 years ago dedicated the same amount of time training for this one actavity, and knew as much about nutrition that person could compete today.
                        
                        The same principle concerning inteligence. We have a larger collection of information to resource and more people have more time to study.  We don't have to perform physical tasks 12 to 16 hours a day just to eat.  Those that do, don't spend much time studying.
                        I don't think that mankind has evolved in the last 4000 years.

                        replyreport
                        1. 47

                           Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           If you were born 4,000 years ago you could not voice, write or declare that opine. The basics of human understanding are far more advanced than they were 2,000 years ago. Jerami, are you really serious that a man of 4,000 years ago is evolved as a man today?
                           They dedicated more time, were exhalted and pampered. But just as you say "and knew as much about nutrition". That my friend is evolution.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Just expressing an opinion!   With all due respect ...  I could be wrong? 
                              I don't think that this indicates evolution but conditions. The social system may have evolved while the individual does not.   In the instance of the runner. He is on a diet eating  a lot of energy foods.spending every minute in training. He runs faster. This is not evolution because change his diet, Ice cream, mashed potatos and gravy, watches TV eating potatochips and cookies, he gets fat and can only walk very slowly. His future offspring is unaffected in either scenario.
                              
                                 I think that "IF" we could go back in time and grab the average guy and bring him here; I don't think it would take very long to teach him to drive a car and read a book and write hubs here on Hub Pages.
                              This would not be instant evolution in doing so.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Why you want to go to 4000yrs before, you could get the Amazons or sentinelese. We humans are the same for the last millennium, anatomically.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    200,000 years. But we on average are taller. Why. Women like tall men, therefor tall men have more babies. That's evolution.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 59

                                       Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       You say Tomito  I say tamato  ...    According to the bible story .. When Abraham placed the willow branch into the sheeps drinking water and the sheep started having stotted lambs ...  was this evolution? 
                                       YES   and  NO!

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          Ahhh NO, and it's never a good idea to bring a bible to a discussion about evolution. No anatomical modern human has been dated back beyond 200,000 years. No dinosaurs have been dated to have been alive in the last 65 million years.

                                          report
                                          1. 59

                                             Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                             This was a hypothetical question concerning the (on a smaller scale) manipulating the apearance of evolution artifically imposed. A catapillar changing into a butterfly is evolving. A person loosing weight or gaining weight getting longer or shorter is not.
                                             We
                                             
                                             A person might even change colors from white to yellow depending upon health issues.         Selective breeding might be said to be one way in which to cause the species to "evolve" 
                                             As in your example of taller men getting all the women  ...  lets just suppose that we steralized all sport people ..  Yes, the species will become taller, You can call this evolution ?  I call it selective breeding.  Short legged deer get caught by preditors, faster running deer live longer and breed more.   Again just another form of selective breeding.

                                             report
                                             1. 0

                                                Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                Yes, short legged deer get caught and that's evolution. That's how it happens. Skin colour change as a result of illness is not, unless the illness can be passed on genetically. For instance the people of the far north (Canadian aboriginal). have adapted ways of not getting frost bite, shorter limbs and a change in the way blood flows while they sleep are two way they have adapted. These adaptations are carried down to further generations. The horse, donkey and zebra are also great example of evolution.

                                                report
                           2. 0

                              Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              No knowledge of nutrition is not evolution. What we have that humans did not 4000 or 40 000 years ago is the ability to share knowledge. We think we are so smart tying on our computers, but most have no idea how they work. I drive around a car I could not make. Our knowledge is limited to what we specialize in. Anatomically modern humans have been around for 200,000 years. They were successful then because of there intelligence. If you pulled a human through time from 150,000 years ago and raised and educated them as one of us. He or she would be no different.
                              
                              If you need proof of evolution look at the colour of your skin. Light skin has evolved in norther climates where there is less sunlight. This adaption allows people with lighter skin to absorb the little light they get and make vitamin D. Dark skinned people would suffer from lack of vitamin D in the north.

                              replyreport
                        2. 0

                           Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Every time humans move to a new environment they adapt or evolve to survive in the new environment. Hence all the different looking peoples of the earth.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              I agree ...  This would fall under the clasification of selective breeding.
                              When the enviroment changes drasticly some genetic strains die off leaving only those those that can survive. These reproduce replenishing their enviroment.
                              Clasic example of selective breeding on the galactic scale.

                              replyreport
                     3. 0

                        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I don't think faster runnings is evidence of evolution. It's evidence of better training. Humans are certainly becoming taller. That could be evidence of evolution. For humans to continue to evolve we have to be stressed with a new environment and with the way global warming is heading there is a good change we will have that opportunity.

                        replyreport
      2. 94

         wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         For the same reason that evolution is known to be false. 
         
         Because the ultimate source of knowledge and truth, the bible, clearly says otherwise.  We were formed along with the earth some 7,000 years ago and thus could not have been here forever.  Case closed - there is no further answer necessary or desirable.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Think so, no believer answers.
            Neither they dare to say "cause bible says so"!

            replyreport
         2. 63

            pisean282311posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            @wilderness from when did bible become ultimate source of knowledge?...if that is so i agree with jomine partly...we have not evolved...we werent always there but we r still evolving...

            replyreport
            1. 0

               jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I have to disagree with you, we have stopped evolving and by 2050 our population pyramid inverts, the last stage of any species.

               replyreport
               1. 63

                  pisean282311posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  @jomine if 2k year old human written fiction book becomes ultimate source of knowledge then there is lot of scope for our evolution...

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Right.

                     replyreport
            2. 94

               wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Why ask me?  I don't know.  Rather, you need to ask any believer, although I'm not sure the answer would make sense to one that does believe as they do.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Paul Wingertposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Believers have a bad habit of believing the Bible as true historical fact, without question, simply because someone, who was also lied to, said it was.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Yet they say humans are not animals. The only difference between  humans and other animals is the analytical brain, which they show they lack(or do not use), but claim they are superior humans(god's chosen)!

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Paul Wingertposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Yep!

                        replyreport
         3. 60

            Johnny2Ballsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            *Facepalm*
            
            Faith in something doesn't make it the ultimate source of truth and knowledge.

            replyreport
         4. 47

            Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I think someone needs to look up ultimate and truth. Wilderness seems out spoken yet shallow. These notions discussed here are not ones that someone commands upon another, they are individual between a self and God. Not ordained by rules.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               You're absolutely correct - my post was shallow.  It was intended to be, for it very often the very answer given to the question in the OP and any attempt to quote such an answer will also be shallow.
               
               As far as the notion not being one that someone commands upon another, if that were true we wouldn't have people demanding that their personal version of a fairy tale be taught to my kids and grandkids in their schools.  Somehow they've lost sight of the idea that such beliefs are between them and their god - they demand that everyone else believe the same story.

               replyreport
               1. 47

                  Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Wilderness -- Sorry for my harsh words earlier. I think we are on the same page. Schools are scary places to send children. I would rather they taught more fairy tales, rather than political truths.

                  replyreport
4. 47

   Ericdierkerposted 11 years ago

   One the most miraculous things I have seen is in the bottom of the Grand Canyon. There are geologic formations that range about 2 million years for each inch vertical, the formations are 100 feet thick. The formations are in the 2 Billion year old range. Science tells us this. Why not?
   
   And I have no qualms with human and other living things evolving, why not?
   
   Because my God can do all things. Why couldn't God have set things up to evolve? Why not?
   
   As for strict literal interpretations of Genesis. I have mine and it includes no 24 hr days until the sun and moon were hung. Prior to that, what is the problem with evolution and billions of years. (Of course the hanging of celestial bodies really means that at last they are revealed, prior to that being covered by volcano ash in the air along with clouds)

   replyreport
5. 60

   Toni_Romanposted 11 years ago

   Humans are not evolved.  Ha!  That's what my dog says, when he puts on my collar and takes me out to walk and relieve myself.
   
   The topic requires one more bit or bite of obligatory humor.  I guess that I should put down my hot dog before I spill relish on the keypad.  I can see the headline now: "Woman bites dog and is electrocuted by lithium batteries"
   
   Humor over.  Now let's get serious.
   
   As a religious person, I was taught in Sunday School and other religious classes that the heart of Man(kind) is desperately wicked.  I certainly believe men are evil (like my ex) but not so sure that other women are evil to the bone.  The reason I even bring up evil is because evil is supposed to prevent any evolution.  Humans supposedly cannot evolve.  We are supposed to be like ants who look just like the ants of millions of years ago trapped in amber like in that show Fringe.
   
   Well the evidence is that humans have evolved physically to allow for a larger and more evolved brain but there has been a trade off.  What we gained in intelligence we lost in other ways.  We cannot run as fast as a cheetah.  We are not as strong as an elephant.  But we learned to use tools to make up for these perceived deficits.  In fact, our tools are killiing us.  Not just guns but robots.  With the same kind of brain that Dr. Isaac Asimov used to write the Laws of Robots, other men of science used their human brains to build military robots such as Predator drones that kill humans.  Some drones are autonomous -- the first step toward terminators.  So we are at a cross roads in evolution:  become gadgets like the military vets and amputees with flippers instead of human legs.  Implants.  Or simply let machines exterminate us all.
   
   Another technology (biotechnology) could take us in a good direction toward immortality or it could be abused for GMO food that results in tumors.  I am not a science phobe like Michael Crichton was but I share his distrust of many technologies in the hands of immoral corporations and immoral politicians and amoral generals.  We do not need a slave race of clones any more than we need a machine race that will make us extinct.
   
   Back to the physical side of evolution: We do not have the ability to regenerate lost limbs like creatures supposedly lower on the evolutionary ladder but very recent research may cure that.
   
   Far too much time in evolution is taken up talking about physical evolution and I want to broach some other areas of discussion if I may please.  Humans share with other mammals an emotional side.  I used to accept that mammals had emotions and other animals did not.  I am no longer so sure.  Birds are supposed to be reptilian in nature but everyone knows that monogamous species have a hard time getting over the loss of a mate.  Adult alligators and crocodiles will munch on adolescent gators and crocs if food is scarce but they are excellent parents to hatchlings when humans are not around.  Now jumping in non-sequitur fashion to humans, I wonder if we humans are very evolved emotionally.  We supposedly love our parents and children but attend any funeral and the way family engages in Social Darwinist survival of the fittest should disabuse one of romantic notions.  I always find it hypocritical that the same people who deny Darwinian evolution in biology will embrace social Darwinism when it comes to poor people, minorities, and the old.   As with relativity in physics, evolution in biology has long since leapt out of its original field to invade every other field of ideas and concepts.  Situation ethics (moral relativity) came from relativity in physics for example.
   
   The social biologists would have you believe that genes have been superseded by memes.  If they are right, then we all should get a refresher course in K versus r theory.  That is, do we have one child and make that child a genius or do we let rapists spread their seed?  Do we let irresponsible players have dozens of children and let us taxpayers foot the bills or do we chop it off?  [I vote for chop it off but that might be my bad experience with my ex talking]  Do we let sperm banks stay open polluting the gene pool with the progeny of guys who need money for booze?  Do we let the hundreds (thousands) of children of sperm banks unwittingly marry each other and commit incest and breed more genetic diseases back into the human stock?  Do we really think that because the science of eugenics was put into permanent bad odor because of the racists of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and the Nazi Holocaust  that somehow through luck dysgenics will not happen?  That we will not breed more and more cripples with genetic diseases?  This is devolution on the physical level.
   
   On the emotional level it is questionable whether humans are progressing or evolving emotionally. However, I will say this much for the human race of which I am a part:  We no longer accept cruelty to animals as something we have to grin and bear.  There were no animal liberationists or PETA in the time of ancient Rome when beasts were tortured to amuse the coliseum rabble.  Christians still get crucified in Africa by Muslims but even that is becoming less common (as Christians are forced to convert).  Slavery is outlawed.  I guess that I am saying that no matter how much I criticize myself or my fellow humans that I recognize progress in such areas as abolition of slavery, women's right to vote, and reduction of child labor.  Children are expected to go to school rather than work in sweat shops, mines or do farm work during week days.  Farm children still have to work before and after school and summers but they they can get high school educations now.
   
   Emotional evolution is being able to see things through the eyes of others.  It is being able to empathize.  The old R-complex part of the brain instinctively says to kill but we can look in nature and see that mammals can easily out think reptiles.  Emotions made possible by the limbic part of the brain have evolutionary advantage over reptilian instinct because of the superior memory of mammals.  Human instincts are generally useful but we can suppress them and not panic in a fire and use our memory of our home to crawl out even though we cannot see for the smoke.  Horses run back into a burning barn because they instinctively head for safety even though their burning stable stall is no longer a safe haven.  To the extent that humans are still doing Caveman routines and instinctual behaviour (war, pollution and overpopulation), we need to retrain ourselves and teach ourselves healthier emotions.  I can't believe that I am saying this but I think that we can do it.  I can't believe what I just said because only a couple of years ago, I would never have had any faith in the human race to get better at anything. 
   
   Mentally and intellectually I also find it hard to see any evolution.  Sure lots of technology but I already pointed out the way that the technology is being abused and how the technology could kill us if we do not wise up and become wiser.  I see us Americans in particular at a cross roads between headed back to the Dark Ages in our worship of stupidity, mooks and anti-intellectualism.  Or recognizing that if we do not put more into science education, that we Americans will have our heads handed to us by foreign competition.  The tallest buildings, the fastest trains, and the best physics labs are no longer in America.  While I see no particular gain to be had by an Edifice Complex other than phallic symbolism, I do recognize that others see it as evidence of Islamic Ascendancy.  That debate can be had elsewhere and I would agree with the moderator's views on this.  My point is that America has a loss of confidence.  Someone like Niall Ferguson has the antidote with his "killer apps".   
   
   Maybe the human race will make it out of the 21st Century (as it did the 20th Century) without committing mass suicide with nukes, germs or pollution.  But it is hard to see that right now.  And there are researchers who say that the internet is making us more stupid by rewiring our brains to think in limited digital binary on/off instead of unlimited analog spectrum.  And it is true that some of the smartest people today do not use the internet or portable gadgets.
   
   Spiritually, I see no evolution at all.  We are wiping out other species on Earth before even completing an inventory of what all those other species are or trying to communicate with whales for example.  We do not respect trees even though they make our oxygen.  We humans figure that since they have no mouths that they have nothing to say.  Animals do have mouths but we don't listen to them either.  Poor people have mouths and can be very articulate (I am poor by the way).  People living in countries other than the United States may not appreciate being battlefields every time US defense contractors want another war so that they can make a few more trillion dollars supplying new weapon systems.  The purpose of war {in case you did not have a military father to explain it to you} is to use up the old weapons so that in our consumer society, they can buy new weapon systems.  I have even read historical accounts from the War Office in World War Two where that is almost a paraphrase of what leaders and bureaucrats said.  In modern terms, weapon system 3 point O replaced by weapon system 4 point O.   New Age meanwhile is no better than the militarists with its unthinking uncritical embrace of pseudo-science.  Until I see Carlos Castaneda levitating the way he was taught as a sorceror's apprentice -- not some Mickey Mouse fantasy but like in Star Wars, then it is pure bunk.  Right.  Carlos Castaneda is dead.  There will be no levitating.  My celestine prophecy is that more people will have their pockets picked by con artists channeling bull.
   
   That said, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.  Some ideas are worth salvaging.  Peace makes more sense than war.  Sustainability and a pristine environment make more sense than destruction and pollution and overpopulation.  Craig Ferguson (no relation to the other guy) has a useful quote:  "There's something I believe wholeheartedly: Cynicism is the true refuge of the pseudo-intellectual, ... Cynicism is easy. Joy is an extremely advanced spiritual and intellectual tenet.”

   replyreport
   1. 0

      jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Exhaustive. Can you be a little brief and more precise?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Toni_Romanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         not evolved but could be

         replyreport
         1. 0

            jomineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Toni_Roman,
            Forget about the theory of evolution for a second.
            We have to explain the presence of intelligent life(Man) on earth or anywhere. So what are the options?
            1) They were always here - not possible- science, logic and religion precludes it.
            2) A superior intelligent being created man. But then we have to explain how that intelligent being came into existence, especially since our first premise is that an intelligent being need creation.
            3) They formed from simple things and animals that predated them. Formation of complex things from simple stuff is called evolution.
            See, since the first two are not possible, the only option left is the third. So there is no need to question evolution,but only the exact process

            replyreport
   2. 60

      Damsoniaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Wow finally some one that thinks like me!  You are so correct in that people need to evolve emotionally and learn empathy. Something this world is sorely lacking.

      replyreport
   3. 58

      A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting post. But, while you make many observations towards science and technology and the state of the world today, please remember that all of societies have evolved with religions ruling them for many centuries, hence that is the reason for the state of our world in which we live as opposed to our current technological advances.

      replyreport
6. 60

   Damsoniaposted 11 years ago

   People evolve to an extent, but then they continually regress. It is a constant cycle. If you follow the different time periods you will notice the same pattern always occurring.

   replyreport
7. 73

   lone77starposted 11 years ago

   I'm a Christian, but I believe in evolution. I'm still not sure about Homo sapiens. It could be a special case, but, like any scientist, we need more information.
   
   Now, as far as the Bible being against evolution, I don't see that anywhere in the Holy Book.
   
   Everyone interprets the Bible, if they know of it at all. I find it hilarious and sad that many Christians think their interpretation is TRUTH, while everyone else's interpretation is heresy.
   
   My current interpretation (and subject to change) is that Genesis 1 was the blueprint or template of creation and possessed zero time (zero seconds long). When God rested (day 7), creation was perfected -- given persistence -- all 13.7 billion years of it. This is based upon the mechanics of creation -- something I've been researching for the past 50+ years. Still a lot more to learn, but these are some sweet breakthroughs.
   
   According to anthropologists, humans are at least 200,000 years old, and they have some pretty good evidence to back that up. Thirty years ago, that figure was closer to 50,000 years old. New discoveries sometimes increase the age of humanity toward some as yet unknown, but True age.
   
   Now, the Bible gives a timeline, but it falls far too short of that found in science.
   
   Let's be clear. Science studies reality and they're doing a pretty good job. They're wrong about some things, but not much. They're batting about 950+ (American baseball terminology where 1000 is a perfect batting record). Ignoring science is tantamount to delusion.
   
   Solution? Listen to science, but don't swallow everything. Read the Bible, but don't swallow all (any?) interpretations.
   
   I happened to discover a timeline in Genesis compatible with those of science. It places the age of humans on the other side of the current anthropological minimum age of 200,000. In fact, it pegs humans starting at 10,434,130 BC -- smack dab in the middle of the Miocene Epoch. Remember those "giants" that roamed the Earth in Genesis. Just look up the giants that roamed Earth during the mid-Miocene. They made modern elephants look like miniature puppies.
   
   This new biblical timeline remains compatible with what is absolutely known in science, but leaves lots of discoveries open for science to make.
   
   But as far as evolution, it looks like Homo sapiens did not evolve from the anthropologist's current pick for our parent species, grandparent species, or even great grandparent species!
   
   So, if this Genesis timeline is right, the Homo sapiens may not have evolved directly from an earthly parent species, but may have been,
   * Created from scratch (and hey, it's God's universe; He can do anything He wants with it),
   * Genetically engineered from existing mammal species of Earth.
   
   There may even be other possibilities.
   
   But one possibility comes clear -- there may not be any disagreement between the Bible and reality, after all. The only disagreement is between individual biblical interpretation and scientific interpretation.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Damsoniaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Very well said, I agree with you! Many people think that religion and science cannot fit together, but it is as you said only disagreement between interpretations.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Wow you started really good there, then something went off the wall when you tried to tie Genesis up with know science. Current Anthropology tell us modern humans first appeared about 200,000 years ago and you claim THAT to be close to more than 10 million years? Is it your claim that we should trust the bible instead of current knowledge? I'm so confused.
      
      Just how are they compatible? 200,000 years vs more than 10 million.
      
      Where did you get any information that Giant humans roamed the earth 10 million years ago? I went against my better judgement and did a search and found of course absolutely nothing.
      
      Somehow this information has led you to conclude that the Genesis timeline is correct?
      
      I particularly like your statement after all that;
      
      "There may even be other possibilities.
      
      But one possibility comes clear -- there may not be any disagreement between the Bible and reality, after all. The only disagreement is between individual biblical interpretation and scientific interpretation."
      
      All the evidence that science has found come to us becoming us about 200,000 years ago, how is it that only a different possibility is clear?

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Toni_Romanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thank God.  A fellow Christian who accepts evolution -- albeit with a different spin than me.

      replyreport
   4. 58

      A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, your interpretations.

      replyreport
8. 61

   lizzieBooposted 11 years ago

   who cares? we can only be what we are. If we wern't fully evolved how would we ever know? Maybe we're devolving. It would certainly explain alot

   replyreport
   1. 61

      lizzieBooposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Ah, I've just realised the question should be 'did humans evolve?'  Are they evolved means something different

      replyreport
9. 0

   Rad Manposted 11 years ago

   Every living creature is evolving and at any given time in history it is fully evolved for that given time.

   replyreport